Bush Nostalgia Watch

Every president looks better as soon as he's out of office, if only because we can stop worrying then that he'll be the one who finally blows everything up. But real nostalgia doesn't kick in until later, when even members of the other party start to cast their gaze backward and long wistfully for a man whose face they used to use as a dartboard. It happened with Ronald Reagan, it happened with Bill Clinton, and as of the summer of 2010 it is happening with George W. Bush.

The change was already underway in July, when Talking Points Memo aired the idea that Bush's exit had unleashed the right's hatred of Muslims. ("His being President and the nominal head of the GOP basically kept a lid on many of the fanatical Islamophobes...The Islamophobes no longer have anyone from up high to keep them quiet.") By mid-August, a Politico story was spreading the idea that "Republican leaders have largely abandoned former President George W. Bush's post-Sept. 11 rhetorical embrace of American Muslims and his insistence -- always controversial inside the party -- that Islam is a religion of peace." Before long, it was possible to find the phrase "George W. Bush understood this" in a Maureen Dowd column, which is a bit like finding an argument for tax cuts in a Tom Frank column, an antiwar elegy in a Bill Kristol column, or a moment of humility in a Thomas Friedman column.

There's some truth to the TPM argument. Bush did make a special effort to reach out to Muslims, and not just in the aftermath of September 11. In an essay for Foreign Policy, Suhail Khan describes Bush's rapport with Islamic voters in 2000, back when 911 was just a phone number:

Muslim Americans are, by and large, both socially and economically conservative. Sixty-one percent of them would ban abortion except to save the life of the mother; 84 percent support school choice. Muslims overwhelmingly support traditional marriage. More than a quarter -- over twice the national average -- are self-employed small-business owners, and most support reducing taxes and the abolition of the estate tax. By all rights they should be Republicans -- and not long ago they were. American Muslims voted two to one for George H.W. Bush in 1992. While they went for Bill Clinton by the same margin in 1996, they were brought back into the Republican fold in 2000 by George W. Bush.

If Clinton was, as the author Toni Morrison once quipped, America's first black president, Bush was, at least momentarily, the country's first Muslim president. As early as 1999, he hosted a series of meetings between Muslim and Republican leaders, and paid a visit himself to an Islamic center in Michigan -- the first and only major presidential candidate to do so. The 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia was the first in either national party's history to include a Muslim prayer. On the campaign trail, Bush celebrated the faith of Americans who regularly attended a "church, synagogue, or mosque." After Muslim community leaders told him of their civil liberties concerns over a piece of 1996 immigration enforcement legislation signed into law by Clinton, Bush criticized it himself in one of his presidential debates against Vice President Al Gore.

The work paid off. By election day, Bush had been endorsed by eight major Muslim American organizations. He won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote, including 46,200 ballots in Florida alone, prompting longtime conservative activist Grover Norquist -- one of the few prominent movement figures to caution against the current wave of mosque demagoguery -- to proclaim in the American Spectator that "Bush was elected President of the United States of America because of the Muslim vote."

But Khan also reports that the Muslim vote was already shifting back into the Democratic column in 2004, and that Barack Obama captured nearly 90 percent of America's Islamic ballots in 2008. While the elder George Bush attracted Muslim voters in office -- by, for example, being careful not to tilt heavily to one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- his son started with strong Muslim support and lost it. That's partly a product of the president's policies. But it also surely reflects something else that Khan demonstrates, a fact that undermines the TPM theory: While W. did his best to keep anti-Muslim rhetoric out of his administration, he couldn't really restrain such sentiments in the larger conservative movement. (The TPM argument also fails to explain why these religious tensions didn't explode until Bush had been out of office for over a year. It's not as though the right-wing grassroots were quiet during that time, but before this summer almost all of their energy went into economic issues.)

Khan does not show, incidentally, that the Republicans have lost the Muslim vote for good. It's not as though the Democratic Party has been making Muslims welcome. As Khan points out, Obama didn't exactly reach out to Muslims in 2008. ("If the Republican candidates treated Muslims as the enemy, the Obama campaign treated them like untouchables, keeping the Democratic candidate's Muslim supporters at arm's length throughout the election.") During the 2006 hysteria over Dubai Ports World, the most vocal xenophobes were Democrats such as Chuck Schumer, who thought the prospect of an Arab company managing American ports would be a good opening to attack Bush on national security grounds. More recently, Republicans may have taken the lead in condemning Cordoba House, but relatively few elected Democrats have risen to defend the project. That led the liberal writer Adam Serwer to argue that the Dems have done nothing to earn lasting Muslim support:

The [pre-'60s] Democratic Party's virulent racism did not prevent black Americans from flocking to the Democratic Party when the Republican Party proved unable or unwilling to mount forceful defenses of black rights. There is no reason to believe that a Democratic Party that has been as timid as this one in defending the rights of Muslims and Latinos can expect their loyalties simply because the other party has been hostile to them. History suggests the opposite is true, and as bad as today's GOP is, they are no where near as racist as the Democratic Party once was.

Calvin Coolidge was a vocal defender of civil rights, but most black people don't look back at the Coolidge administration and think, "That's why I'm a Republican." Lyndon Johnson didn't just give a speech; he passed the most wide-reaching and comprehensive civil-rights legislation in American history. What has Obama done for Latinos or Muslims that is even remotely comparable?

In the last two decades, the Muslim vote has gone from the Republicans to the Democrats to the Republicans and then back to the Democrats again. It's still up for grabs today, though we might have to wait til an election where Dearborn plays the role of West Palm Beach before either party decides it's a constituency worth pursuing.

Update: Having written that "relatively few elected Democrats have risen to defend" Park51, I should give credit to the ones who have.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • LBJ||

    Every president looks better as soon as he's out of office

    Even me? Thank you, Jesse!

  • LBJ||

    But seriously, what's with the DO YOU MISS ME YET? George W. T-shirts? Do the morons who wear them realize that an Actual Constitutional Amendment prohibits three full presidential terms? Why would anyone "miss" a retired two-term president? Why am I asking you?

  • ||

    Aside from the term limits issue, this is akin to asking Poles whether they missed the Nazis when they were under the Soviet heel.

    In other words, I miss limited, reasonably good government. Not Bush. Maybe they should put George Washington on those shirts?

  • waffles||

    pray tell, when in your lifetime have you truly experienced limited, reasonably good government? How can you even be sure that you would like it?

  • ||

    Got me there--we've only had less unlimited government in my lifetime.

    I'm pretty sure, though, that I'd like less government than we have now.

  • cynical||

    Too dated. Calvin Coolidge will be acceptable.

  • ||

    Is anyone actually wearing those T-shirts? I mean, you have to have had your irony detector removed to pretend Bush was somehow "better" than Obama, instead of, oh, really really similar?

  • ||

    Remember that picture that made the rounds morphing images of Bush and Obama? That was incredibly prescient.

  • LBJ||

    The intertubes have informed me that the Bush T-shirts are outselling Obama T-shirts on Martha's Vineyard. This is not a scientific poll.

  • Conservatard Nannie||

    The problem is that neither leftists nor rightists understand that they are both statists with but small managerial differences. That either way we end up with HUGE government dictating every facet of our existence.

    Long live republicrats.

  • ||

    You look better dead

  • ||

    Nobody has done more to help Bush than his successor.

  • ||

    Caption (you know which one):

    "Wait'll you taste the wedding cake, honey!"

  • The Gobbler||

    "Don't tell Barbara."

  • ||

    "Is that ham I taste?"

  • Tman||

    The best part of the Bush nostalgia is that the folks who voted for Obama who were independent are now realizing that for all the things they hated about Bush, Obama has been doing all of them except twice as hard. Plus, with Obama you get all of the liberal social welfare garbage as well!!

    Whilst I don't believe the Maverick would have been any different, it's been fun to watch the Reason staffers pick apart the guy they endorsed in article after article. I bet that gets uncomfortable.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    The important thing is that the Republicans learned their lesson. Right?

  • Tman||

    (whimpers sadly...)

  • Lefty4Life||

    Conclusion: We are actually getting worse at picking presidents.

  • ||

    That's for damned sure.

  • ||

    Conclusion: We are actually getting worse at picking presidents.

    Clearly. Compare the first four Presidents (ranging from the merely awesome to quasi-godlike) with the last four (ranging from mediocre through incompetent to semi-deranged).

  • Mo||

    Eh, history is great for whitewashing the past. With the exception of Washington, much of the early generation had no problem completely overstepping the limits to their power. For example, Adams had the Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson pulled a Nixon and refused to comply with a subpoena from the SCOTUS during Aaron Burr's treason trial, invoking executive privileged*.

    Over 200 years of presidents and legislators overstepping their boundaries has gotten us to where we are today. Some were great, some were awful and most were in between. However, let's not lionize the past and forget their flaws**. It's like saying that today's Colorado River is better at cutting rock because it happens to be at the bottom of a canyon.

    * Could you imagine the collective freakout if either of those things happened today.

    ** Few presidents were as imperial as Andrew Jackson.

  • ||

    Few presidents were as imperial as Andrew Jackson.

    I'll see your Jackson and raise you one Teddy Roosevelt.

  • ||

    James. Knox. Polk.

    The only president to threaten war on both Canada and Mexico (and actually start it against the latter). Guess what historians think of him?

    Polk is now recognized, not only as the strongest president between Jackson and Lincoln, but the president who made the United States a coast-to-coast nation. When historians began ranking the presidents in 1948, Polk ranked 10th in Arthur M. Schlesinger’s poll. and has subsequently ranked 8th in Schlesinger’s 1962 poll, 11th in the Riders-McIver Poll (1996), 11th in the most recent Siena Poll (2002), 9th in the most recent Wall Street Journal Poll (2005), and 12th in the latest C-Span Poll (2009).

    Polk biographers over the years have sized up the magnitude of Polk’s achievements and his legacy, particularly his two most recent. “There are three key reasons why James K. Polk deserves recognition as a significant and influential American president,” Walter Borneman wrote. “First, Polk accomplished the objectives of his presidential term as he defined them; second, he was the most decisive chief executive prior to the Civil War; and third, he greatly expanded the executive power of the presidency, particularly its war powers, its role as commander in chief, and its oversight of the executive branch." President Harry S. Truman summarized this view by saying that Polk was "a great president. Said what he intended to do and did it."

    While Polk’s legacy thus takes many forms, the most outstanding is the map of the continental United States, whose landmass he increased by a third. “To look at that map,” Robert Merry concluded, “and to take in the western and southwestern expanse included in it, is to see the magnitude of Polk’s presidential accomplishments.”
  • TB||

    ...and third, he greatly expanded the executive power of the presidency, particularly its war powers...

    yes, truly he was a great president...

  • Quiet Desperation||

    >>>"The only president to threaten war on both Canada and Mexico

    WIN!

  • Quiet Desperation||

    Yeah, but Teddy wrestled lions to relax, owned about 6500 guns and single handedly fought off the Martian invasion of 1907. He also banged a new babe in the Lincoln bedroom every single night, so it's no wonder one of the best types of lingerie is named after him.

    I know this is all true because I reads it on that there intertube gadget.

  • ||

    Compare the first four Presidents (ranging from the merely awesome to quasi-godlike)

    All Slave owners and one was accused in the papers of having children with one of his slaves.

    None of the last 4 had deeds recorded at the county court house claiming ownership of people.

  • ||

    So what. The first four wore waist coats, and none of the last four did. The first four never used the internet, and the last four did.

  • MJ||

    To be fair to the voters, the field of candidates was not particularly impressive.

  • Quiet Desperation||

    There was a field?

  • Apologetic California||

    LOL! There's zero chance that the Muslims will vote against a fellow Muslim....

  • ||

    Is that the problem with political gridlock in Iraq?

  • Tony||

    Yeah Bush, admirably, sought to distinguish terrorists from all Muslims. It's a good first step toward easing relations between the Muslim world and the West. Then he went and blew a Muslim country to shit for no reason. Oops.

  • Tman||

    Good thing we got Hope and Change, right Tony?

    Things are all better now.

  • Tony||

    I just watched the last combat troops leave Iraq. No, things are not "all" better now, but they're "better."

  • ||

    "last combat troops"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    First of all, what Episiarch said.

    Second, I'm pretty sure we're withdrawing on the Bush/Gates timetable.

    Bush, Obama, what's the diff?

  • MNG||

    I keep hearing about this Bush timetable thing, but if the 2006 elections had not smacked W in the mouth I don't think that timetable would have been much. Also, the choice in 08 was between McCain and Obama, and McCain worked pretty hard to give the impression, true or not, that he was going to have a heavier presence in Iraq.

    There is so much to rag on Obama about re: his campaign rhetoric vs. his presidency (Gitmo, marijuana raids, etc). I don't see Iraq as much in that vein, that was Bush's baby, he seems to be trying to clean up the mess in a responsible way.

  • ||

    I hear you, but the fact remains that it is Bush's timetable. Not Obama's.

    I swear I'm having trouble not thinking Bush did win a third term.

  • ||

    Wait until Bush unzips the Obama costume and steps out.

    "Fooled ya's! Now, where's Dick? I told him I'd win this bet."

  • ||

    You know, they do look a little alike.

  • MNG||

    Pro
    I found this online from a dated source (better for establishing what Bush's actual timetable was imo) if true it points to some differences imo re:Bush and Obama's timetables:

    The Bush administration and Maliki Government have agreed on a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The timetable would lead to the withdrawal of all American combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 and leave behind a residual force for training and support. All U.S. forces would be out of Iraqi cities by the middle of 2009. [Washington Post, 8/22/08]

    The agreement is very similar to Barack Obama’s plan and is more aggressive in some ways. Obama’s plan calls for the removal of all U.S. combat forces by the middle of 2010 – a year earlier than the Bush administration’s timetable. However, the Maliki-Bush timetable would have all U.S. combat forces out of Iraqi cities by the middle of 2009 -- a more aggressive plan than Obama’s. [NY Times, 8/21/08. Barack Obama]

  • ||

    Mission accomplished!

    I am kidding, but the war was mostly "won" after the Surge™. Will it stay won after we leave? Probably not.

  • SIV||

    No, Bush vetoed SCHIP

  • MNG||

    Yeah, he did veto that one. Too bad kids can't vote like old folks can...

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/elec04.medicare/

  • ||

    It reminds me of seeing reports that the Marines were pulling out of Lebanon, as we were preparing to go.

  • Tman||

    things are not "all" better now, but they're "better."

    You're not seriously arguing that things are "better" now because of Obama, are you? Even YOU can't be that stupid.

  • ||

    Even YOU can't be that stupid.

    Why, yes, yes he can be.

  • Chupacabra||

    Maybe Tony works for a union. In which case, things would be better. For him.

  • MattXIV||

    Ah yes, "Mission Accomplished 2: Iraqi Boogaloo", because as the saying goes, you can fool some of the people all the time.

  • KPres||

    "I just watched the last combat troops leave Iraq. No, things are not "all" better now, but they're "better."

    Yep. Right on George Bush's schedule.

  • Spoonman.||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yeah, they're just "consultants" now in "partnered counter-terrorist operations".

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    ""Then he went and blew a Muslim country to shit for no reason. Oops.""

    Everything is done for a reason.

  • ||

    He blew up two Muslim countries. Jesus, can't you leftists handle any math?

  • cynical||

    Afghanistan was already shit.

  • shmee skyhooker||

    There was a pretty large flaming pile of reason for Afghanistan @ the time...
    Iraq, eh, not so much (if the flimsiest fakest fearmongeringest pretexts for a multi-billion $$$ graft bonanza count for zip, i s'pose)...

  • ||

    I'm not objecting to the invasion of Afghanistan, I'm just noting that we blew up two Muslim nations.

  • Mo||

    Not to defend Tony, but he did say, "Then he went and blew a Muslim country to shit for no reason." (Emphasis added)

  • Mo||

    Not to defend Tony, but he did say, "Then he went and blew a Muslim country to shit for no reason." (Emphasis added)

  • ||

    I noted that and decided to make a ha ha nonetheless.

  • Mo||

    his son started with strong Muslim support and lost it. That's partly a product of the president's policies. But it also surely reflects something else that Khan demonstrates, a fact that undermines the TPM theory: While W. did his best to keep anti-Muslim rhetoric out of his administration, he couldn't really restrain such sentiments in the larger conservative movement.

    I'm guessing the Iraq War had a lot more to do with President Bush's loss of support than the conservative movement did. Keep in mind, in 1992 Muslims generally supported the war in Iraq. In 2003, it wasn't the case. Things like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the joys of TSA and customs* made things much worse as well.

    Lyndon Johnson didn't just give a speech; he passed the most wide-reaching and comprehensive civil-rights legislation in American history. What has Obama done for Latinos or Muslims that is even remotely comparable?

    What could any president do that is remotely comparable? There is no explicit discrimination or laws akin to Jim Crow for Muslims or Latinos? I guess a president solving the Israel-Palestine issue would be the closest thing.

    The thing that helped the Dems out post-CR is that racists like Strom Thurmond left their party, Goldwater ran against civil rights legislation and Nixon's Southern Strategy. It wasn't just LBJ's doing that won over African-Americans, the Republicans gave them a big assist on that.

    The only way that could be comparable would be if a Republican peacefully solved I-P, people like Newt flipped parties and the Democrats went on an active campaign to recruit the Pam Gellars of the world.

    BTW, much like Muslims, African Americans are pro-life, pro-school choice and pro-traditional marriage. However, being associated, fairly or unfairly, with bigots turned them off.

    * TSA and customs still suck just as much now, but people are largely numb from 9 years of it.

  • Jesse Walker||

    I'm guessing the Iraq War had a lot more to do with President Bush's loss of support than the conservative movement did. Keep in mind, in 1992 Muslims generally supported the war in Iraq. In 2003, it wasn't the case. Things like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the joys of TSA and customs* made things much worse as well.

    Oh, I agree that policy was more important than rhetoric. But since Bush's alleged role in keeping anti-Islamic sentiment suppressed was being discussed, it's worth noting that such sentiment wasn't actually that difficult to find.

  • Woodrow||

    Muslims supported the 1991 Gulf War mostly because Saddam was a fake Muslim/real athiest who spent most of his time killing other Muslims instead of focusing on the evil Zionists.

  • Adonisus||

    LBJ did do alot on Civil Rights legislation....that doesn't neccessarily make him a standout president, though.

    Seriously, people think that Clinton was a sleaze....he had NOTHING on Johnson.

    Ladybird must have had the patience of a Saint, because this man would mount anything with a pulse.

  • ||

    How dare you criticize LBJ on a libertarian blog! Prepare to be flamed.

  • ||

    I read once that LBJ would force cabinet members to talk to him while he was on the toilet. With the door open. Dominance games.

  • ||

    I've actually heard recordings of these phone calls on C-SPAN.

    "And you know...NNNNNGGT...we've got us a mess of a...GRRK...problem with them little yellow fellers."

  • MJ||

    "I guess a president solving the Israel-Palestine issue would be the closest thing."

    That really is not the USA's issue to solve, and it can only be solved if both sides want a solution or one side utterly destroys the other. I don't see any evidence of the former (and, frankly, it is the Palestinians who are the most intractable), and the latter is rather unlikely on both sides. The Palestinians don't have the strength and the Israelis don't have the complete ruthlessness necessary to accomplish the task.

    There is a decent argument that a large part of the ill will in the Arab/Muslim world towards the US is the direct result of trying to "solve" that conflict. Why do want us to continue to pick at that wound?

  • Ike||

    I liked civil rights too!
    http://tinyurl.com/2fkod9j

    The “somebody else” in this instance was Lyndon B. Johnson, who in 1957 was the Senate’s Democratic majority leader. Historians have consistently credited Johnson for the bill’s passage. Yes, Johnson played a role, but hardly the one his advocates might imagine: Eisenhower and his attorney general, Herbert Brownell Jr., first proposed strong legislation, and it was Johnson and his Southern cronies who weakened it beyond recognition.

    Johnson wanted a cosmetic bill that would enhance his presidential ambitions without alienating his white Southern base. It was a balancing act, as even a weak bill depended on Eisenhower’s new legislative coalition, which formed after he persuaded the Republicans to abandon their longtime opposition to civil rights legislation. (Republicans provided 37 of the 60 yes votes when the final bill passed the Senate.)

  • Tricky Dick||

    Barry Goldwater's southern strategy not mine. Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!

    Unfortunately, in analyzing the GOP’s alienation from black voters, Parker repeats the old canard that the African-American exodus from the GOP began in 1968 in response to what she describes as, “Richard Nixon’s ‘Southern strategy,’ which tried to harness votes by cultivating white resentment toward blacks.” At quick glance at a little history refutes this persistent and pernicious myth.

    For its first 70 years , the Republican Party – the Party of Lincoln – was the home of the vast majority of African-American voters. FDR was the first Democratic president to win the support of a majority of black voters. Nevertheless, Republican presidential candidates in every election through 1960 could expect to receive the support of roughly one-third of black voters. Indeed, in 1960, about one in every three African-Americans voters voted for Richard Nixon.

    It wasn’t until 1964 that African-American support for the GOP fell off the cliff. Barry Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which, ironically, was supported by larger proportions of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress) drove black voter supporter for the GOP standard-bearer down below ten percent. In the years since, it has rarely climbed much above that mark and has never come close to the level RN received in 1960.

    Goldwater, of course, carried much of the Deep South in 1964 (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina), all five of which the Democrats had carried in 1960. But, with the exception of his home state of Arizona, that’s all he won. New York Senator Jacob Javits, writing in early 1966 about the electoral debacle of 1964, blamed it squarely on “the Goldwater-Miller ill-fated ‘Southern Strategy.’”

    Over the years, however, RN’s critics have blamed him for creating a “Southern Strategy” designed to win white votes by exploiting racial tensions. If that had been his aim, the results of the 1968 election suggest he failed at it miserably. In 1968, RN lost four of the five Southern states that Goldwater had carried. George Wallace carried the rest of the Goldwater Southern bloc – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. And of those four states, RN ran third, behind both Wallace and the Democrat’s nominee, Hubert Humphrey, in three of them.

    Once in the White House, President Nixon’s actions can hardly be called those of a president seeking to inflame racial tensions. Nothing illustrates that better than the historic progress his administration achieved in finally ending the practice of segregating the races in “separate but equal” schools in the South. When RN took office in 1969, 68 percent of black Southern students attended segregated schools. Within five years, that number had been cut to 9 percent. As Tom Wicker wrote in his biography, One of Us, “The Nixon administration did more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the sixteen previous years, or probably since.”

    Of course, beginning in 1972, the Democrat’s once Solid South turned reliably red at the presidential level, except when a Son of the South was running for president (Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992). The lock the Democrats had on Southern Senate and House seats also began to erode during the Nixon years.

    The reasons for this change are many. Chief among them is RN’s success in occupying the middle ground in American politics and thus attracting the support of Silent Majority, not just in the South, but also in every part of America. Attributing the Republican Party’s success in breaking the Democrat’s hold on the South to a cynical, Nixon-devised “Southern Strategy” based on creating and then exploiting racial division is not only simplistic, it’s also contradicted by the record.

    http://tinyurl.com/2du3ks6

  • ||

    Just for the record, I don't miss Bush in the least...

    Especially since Obama is so much like him. Oh, and I despised Bush for being so much like Lyndon Johnson in so many craptacular ways.

    Don't miss Bush at all, and I won't miss Obama either. Nothing will ever make me nostalgic for incompetent leadership.

  • ||

    Agreed, how can you miss Bush if Obama is so much like him. But the left nor right really want to admit it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Just small managerial differences.

    Two maps that lead to the same nanny state hell.

  • ||

    ""Two maps that lead to the same nanny state hell.""

    Unfortunately for us, I think that map is stapled to the desk in the Oval Office.

  • dfd||

    it's been fun to watch the Reason staffers pick apart the guy they endorsed in article after article.[citation needed]

    It's also fun to watch people distort those who made mostly grudging "lesser-of-two-evils" choices into raging Obamaphiles writing (suspiciously unspecified) "article after article" endorsing him.

    That is pure self-serving revisionist history in search of cheap schadenfreude. Maybe you could try citing some of those many "endorsements" so we can actually see what was really said at the time.

  • MNG||

    Oh, snap! Paleos, talk to the hand!

  • Tman||

    Here's your citation dfd-

    http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote

    It's also fun to watch people distort those who made mostly grudging "lesser-of-two-evils" choices into raging Obamaphiles writing (suspiciously unspecified) "article after article" endorsing him.

    I didn't say that. I said that the Reason staffers who did vote for him have been picking him apart ever since. Go read that link to see who did, since you're too lazy to find it yourself.

  • ||

    To be fair to anyone employed by this august publication who may have voted for or at least not repudiated Obama during the 2008 election, with the exception of the dearly departed Dave, who is defending Obama now?

  • Tman||

    who may have voted for or at least not repudiated Obama during the 2008 election

    That is BY FAR my biggest problem with some of the libertarians here at Reason. They all agreed that McCain was horrible, but none of them argued successfully why Obama would be any better. They just figured he would be because he would implement more liberal social policy, when there was no evidence that Obama was anything but an empty suit. They bought his line of BS about marijuana raids and Gitmo and now they look like idiots for believing him. And even worse, the economic and foreign policy steps Obama has taken are light years worse for libertarians than anything anyone predicted. One cannot possibly argue that Obama is in any way a friend of libertarians, and they deserve to mocked for arguing otherwise.

    They bought the suit, they should wear it.

  • SIV||

    You can't fault Cavanaugh. He voted for Obama just because he wanted a Black president.

  • ||

    That, I think, was the reason a whole lot of journalists voted for Obama. They were in an orgasmic thrall to usher in a black president. He was clean and articulate, after all.

  • ||

    As recently as a couple of months ago Chapman was.

    I think most of the "cosmotarian" stuff is a pretty unfair broadside, but there is a decent point buried beneath that it is often hard to separate out political issues with issues involving how you were brought up.

    It usually doesn't come up in clear cut cases, but in the very fuzzy ones, I don't doubt that being brought up in an urban area in a blue state (with either no or very little religious upbringing) might cause you to break ties in favor of team blue for no particularly good reason.

    I feel it myself. It's very hard for me to identify with evangelical voters from the south having been brought up nonreligious from Chicago. Realizing that makes it easier to deal with my own built-in biases on the matter, but I doubt it corrects it altogether.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This.

    I was born and raised in Miami, and sometimes it turns my stomach to know with whom I'm aligning politically at this juncture because I've already refutiated (lol) politics by religious/ moral conviction long ago.

  • dfd||

    I was taking issue with your Reason staffers "article after article" endorsing him claim (that's why I quoted it) which besides being sill unsubstantiated, certainly implies much more than the, again, mostly grudging votes he got from some Reason staff.

    As for the link, one, it's not lazy to ask the person making a factual claim to support it -- rather the opposite, it's lazy to to essentially tell others to "find it yourself." But beyond that, I had already read it and aside from the minor detail that many of those are not really regular Reason "staff", it nevertheless supports what I said and not what you said, so thanks.

  • Tman||

    I meant "article after article" in which they pick him apart. I can see why it's confusing, and I should have worded that differently.

    As for the link, one, it's not lazy to ask the person making a factual claim to support it

    I thought it was common knowledge around here that the majority of the writers you see here everyday (Welch, Walker, Bailey, Doherty, Cavanaugh, etc) all voted for hope and change. I guess not.

    But beyond that, I had already read it and aside from the minor detail that many of those are not really regular Reason "staff"

    Really? That must be news to them.

  • ||

    I voted for Babar, the Libertarian elephant, but if I hadn't, I would've voted for the Manchurian McCainadate. For gridlock.

    Obama wasn't ever even a remote consideration. I knew he'd bring some sort of neo-socialism to the table without a GOP Congress to temper him, and I also knew that, like all Democrats, he'd try to out-war and out-law enforcement the right.

    God, do I hate the status quo!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This.

    Voted for Barr.

  • Jesse Walker||

    the majority of the writers you see here everyday (Welch, Walker, Bailey, Doherty, Cavanaugh, etc) all voted for hope and change

    Did you read the link you provided? Welch and Walker voted for Bob Barr, and Doherty doesn't vote.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Really? That must be news to them.

    I doubt it was news to Bagge, Bartlett, Benford, Bovard, Brin, Carey, Chapman, Harsanyi, Jillette, Kampia, Kauffman, Kopel, McMenamin, Newmark, Norquist, Oliver, Pinker, Sager, Sanchez, Scalzi, Shafer, Shermer, Sirius, Slagle, Stanhope, Steigerwald, Stone, and Young that they aren't Reason employees. Though Carey does sit on our board.

  • Tman||

    You're right Jesse, I fucked up. Here's the correct list for those interested.

    Bailey-Obama
    Balko- Barr
    Bartlett- Barr
    Benford (?) - Barr
    Bovard- Barr
    Brin- Obama
    Carey- Anybody but Bush
    Cavanaugh- Obama
    Chapman- Obama
    Dalmia- No idea
    Doherty- Didn't vote
    Gillespie-Barr (thank you Jacket)
    Harsanyi- Neither
    Jillette-Barr
    Kampia- Barr
    Kaufman- Nader (hilarious!)
    Kopel- Barr or McCain
    Mangu-Ward - Doesn't vote (surprising)
    Moynihan- Doesn't Vote
    Oliver- Barr
    Poole-McCain
    Root- Barr
    Sager-Obama
    Scalzi- Obama
    Sullum-Barr
    Walker- Barr (whoops!)
    Weigel- Obama
    Welch- Barr (double whoops!)
    Young -Barr

    That's seven Reason staff members. I apologize for naming the wrong ones, I hadn't read the full article in a while. Hopefully this list acts as some penance.

  • Tman||

    And to correct it AGAIN (jebus) Brin, Scalzi, and Sager aren't Reason staffers.

    SO.

    The final list of Reason contributors who voted for Obama is-

    Bailey, Cavanaugh, Chapman, and Weigel. The first three have no excuse, Weigel is self-explanatory.

    My point still remains.

  • ||

    My point still remains.

    No, it collapsed into a singularity of stupidity. Cavanaugh was the only one to actually write an article advocating a vote for Obama, and more staffers voted for Barr than Obama anyway.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Chapman isn't a staffer. He's a libertarian writer at the Chicago Tribune; we run his syndicated column.

  • Tman||

    I stand corrected again. Cavanaugh is not a staffer, just someone who gets posted here a lot. WhiCh was my initial point

    " Whilst I don't believe the Maverick would have been any different, it's been fun to watch the Reason staffers pick apart the guy they endorsed in article after article. I bet that gets uncomfortable."

    meaning that Bailey and Cavanaugh probably get uncomfortable when they post about how Obama is anti-libertarian from any reasonable analysis.

    Whilst it's great to be proven wrong about how many "staffers" didn't vote for him, it's nonetheless disappointing to see how those same staffers have failed to appreciate how much more pro-libertarian Bush was in comparison to Obama.

    You can TEAMREDTEAMBLUE me in the face as long as you want, but you're delirious if you think Obama is going to deliver enough "socially liberal" policies to make up for the Keyneysian clusterfark the Democratic congress has created.

    Forget foreign policy, is anyone really surprised that this many people miss Bush?

  • Jesse Walker||

    Actually Tim C. is a staffer now. Though IIRC he wasn't on staff when we did that poll.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    I loved Shermer's answer. He saw the future!

    (Admittedly, so did several of the McCain endorsements that cited divided government as one of the reasons for voting McCain)

  • stuartl||

    The psychic prize definitely goes to Jacob Sullum:

    "What will you miss about the Bush administration? The idea that $438 billion is a big budget deficit."

  • ||

    Mangu-Ward - Doesn't vote (surprising)

    what?

    Every election (even mid term) she writes an article or two telling everyone they should not vote.

  • ||

    Damn you Tim Cavanaugh!!!

    1. Who are you voting for in November? Barack Obama. All my life I've been waiting for a black president; Obama's not monumentally unqualified, and his solid-if-boring book at least had some unkind words for teachers unions. Also my kids like him.

  • John McCain||

    In reality a vote for Barr was the same as voting for Obama.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Glad you can read, Tman. Doherty (like Mangu-Ward) didn't vote. Walker and Welch said they would most likely vote for Barr, and if they didn't, probably wouldn't vote for anyone.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Or what Jesse said.

  • ||

    Their votes are less of an issue than their public positions on the president, anyway. It's been pretty much a steady "He sucks ass in unprecedented ways" since January 2009.

  • SIV||

    Radley and Nick have been supportive of Obama's political appointees.

  • SIV||

  • ||

    I don't know Austan Goolsbee. Is this a Marxist, or was Radley correct?

  • SIV||

    He was at UoChicago but not a "free market economist". Back in the Hopey days there was some buzz that he absorbed some Chicago/Austrian stuff by "osmosis" and he'd spread it to Obama like it was VD, or something.

  • ||

    Really? Who? I don't read everything here, but I've definitely been getting an Obama-sucks vibe.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's been pretty much a steady "He sucks ass in unprecedented ways" since January 2009.

    Yeah, it would be different if there was a determined effort to carry water for Obama. I'd imagine today they would at least demur from voting, if they couldn't stomach Barr. I certainly hope so.

  • dfd||

    Well I see others beat me to it, but some assorted quotes from Tman's link:

    Matt Welch: ”I live in the District of Columbia, which will probably go 90 percent to Barack Obama, so I will probably throw a bone to the third-party candidate whose program most resembles my own: Bob Barr.”

    Jacob Sullum: “Bob Barr.”

    Jesse Walker: “Bob Barr, despite my dismay at the campaign he's run.”

    Ron Bailey: “Obama. The Republicans must be punished and punished hard.”

    Brian Doherty: “I don't vote, and don't expect I ever shall.”

    Nick Gillespie:” I am not sure that I'll cast a ballot for president but if I do, I'll vote for Bob Barr.”

    Radley Balko: “Bob Barr. He's the first serious candidate the LP has run since I've been eligible to vote.”

    Katherine Mangu-Ward: “I never vote.”

    Michael Moynihan: “I am once again feeling it unnecessary to vote.”

    Damon Root: “I'm wavering between Bob Barr and None of the Above, though I'm leaning strongly towards the latter. I really just want the Republicans to lose.”

  • ||

    "Ron Bailey: “Obama. The Republicans must be punished and punished hard.”

    So, moral of the story?

    The strongest endorsement Obama got from the bunch was from Bailey--and he didn't really endorse Obama so much as liken him to a plague of flies and locusts.

  • ||

    I think we all learned a very, very, very important lesson: Don't vote to "punish" a political party. It doesn't work.

    We need divided government until--and this may never happen--we can vote for a unified government that will undo the damage and will actively try to carve up Leviathan.

  • ||

    ...and as an addendum. I voted with Doherty, Mangu-Ward, Moynihan and Root.

    The only people who have a right to complain are the people who didn't vote--everybody else got what they deserved for dignifying the winners with their participation.

  • ||

    I voted today. I think I was one of fifty people to do so in Hillsborough County. No kidding, the poll worker I got my ballot from said I was her first voter of the day (they divided it up by alpha ranges)--and I wasn't there particularly early.

  • Anonymous||

    Was she cute?

  • ||

    In the early 20th century, I suppose.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I voted for Barr, and I did not vote in races where there were only (R) or (D) candidates. How you, or anyone, can see that as a sign of approval of our current system eludes me.

  • BakedPenguin||

    My 7:40 was for Ken.

  • ||

    "How you, or anyone, can see that as a sign of approval of our current system eludes me."

    Touche!

    But I still say the system is the problem, and the winners use our participation to legitimize themselves and their deeds.

    Vote against the last president, and the new one doesn't say you were repudiating the last president--he says you voted against the last guy 'cause you want a government takeover of healthcare. Only non-participation communicates my complete contempt for what the last guy did--and what his opponent will almost certainly do.

    I might vote for an incumbent someday, assuming I approved of what he actually did, but I've come to the conclusion that my protest vote can and will be used against me in the court of public opinion. So, if I can't bring myself to vote for the incumbent, I'll just exercise my right to remain silent.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Ken, I voted for Barr, because like other Libertarians before him, his views nearly reflect mine (although he was a bit of a stretch). How any R or D candidate could see a vote for an L as any sort of mandate for them is beyond me. It's almost like voting for "none of the above".

    Further, I absolutely refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils" specifically because I don't want any R or D to think they have a "mandate" or "political capital" or whatever.

  • MWG||

    My family (mostly conservative) gets annoyed at the fact that I refuse to vote. They love to drag out the "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain" argument all the time.

    What's that saying? The lesser of two evils is still what?

  • ||

    The only people who have a right to complain are the people who didn't vote

    As a band named after a pill-popping conservative talk show host once said, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

  • ||

    I just watched a special on Rush. What's weird is that Lee is starting to look like a grandmother.

  • MJ||

    Does that band have a time machine to accomplish the feat of being named after the talk show host who was famous after them?

  • ||

    You know, I always interpreted that line as sarcasm in context. He's listing all these silly beliefs a person can have--including the false dichotomy you mentioned--and then he says he's choosing free will instead.

    Multiple Choice:

    A) Pro Friendly Guide in Celestial Voice
    B) Anti Friendly Guide (If you don't choose "A", you're automatically assigned "B")
    C)Phantom Fears
    D) Kindness that can kill
    E) A purpose clear--free will.

    *bass solo*

    Tune in next week for the real meaning of "By-tor and the Snow Dog".

  • Determinism||

    "and then he says he's choosing free will instead"

    FOOL! hahahahhahahaha

  • The Angry Optimist||

    You know, I always interpreted that line as sarcasm in context.

    It is not - it is all straight out of Objectivism.

  • James C Bennett||

    "You know, I always interpreted that line as sarcasm in context."

    I have always interpreted it as a rejection of agnosticism.

  • ||

    All that link shows is that more staffers voted for Barr than Obama.

  • ||

    ""BTW, much like Muslims, African Americans are pro-life, pro-school choice and pro-traditional marriage. However, being associated, fairly or unfairly, with bigots turned them off.""

    But unlike Muslims, African American's have a different definition for getting stoned.

  • ||

    When Howard Dean demurs on the worthless religion-type building on Park Ave., that no actual Mahometan gives a flying fuck about, while some nonentity capital-L Libertarian from a very worthless seaside district of Greater Houston "comes out" "full-throatedly" (I'll bet) in favor of it--then you know: a) Dean continues to be superior to 99% of existing practitioners, and b) it is a good time to be alive. But not as good as when George W. Bush was President

  • ¢||

    The TPM argument also fails to explain why these religious tensions didn't explode until Bush had been out of office for over a year.

    It's a reaction (or an accumulating sum of reactions) to recent events.

    The admin's rhetoric on all Muslim-related business is clinger-alienating (and not effective in any other way), the blackout on what was up with the Fort Hood guy really pissed them off because it came during a media wave of imaginary Clinger Terror, and by now they realize that any reaction other than silent abjection before the entire overclass's ganging-up-against-them over a stunt like the mosque deal is going to be spun as an OMG RACIST SPLOSION, so...fuck it.

    They've stared too long into the asshole. The scenery-blockingly huge asshole.

  • Paul||

    Muslim Americans are, by and large, both socially and economically conservative. Sixty-one percent of them would ban abortion except to save the life of the mother; 84 percent support school choice. Muslims overwhelmingly support traditional marriage.

    I always think about this when liberals talk about "reaching out" to the "Muslim community"... whatever that means.

  • ||

    It is a puzzler, isn't it? And as for that and "the right's hatred of Muslims," I find it quite ironic that for decades the left has attacked Christianity as obsolete, hidebound, anti-woman, anti-gay, etc. etc. Now, post-9/11, anyone who object to Islam is a narrow-minded bigot, if not a racist, even though by pretty much every measure, Islam is worse than Christianity on the things they claim to care about.

    "The enemy of my enemy," anyone?

  • ||

    Over here I always attack Islam "as obsolete, hidebound, anti-woman, anti-gay, etc. etc." House lefties never have anything to respond.

  • ||

    You're right! Liberals are hypocrites.

    However, hypocrites are right half the time, you bigot.

  • MJ||

    Muslims are an oppressed minority and they left cannot hold oppressed minorities responsible for their cultural backwardness. At least, up to the point the left no longer sees them as oppressed. The left's moral sense always makes them take the perceived weaker side, no matter what that side actually stands for.

    For the right, a significant vocal portion of Islam stands against Western Civilization, and, unlike the left, the right likes Western Civilization and endeavors to defend it.

  • Yonemoto||

    Ron Paul is a secret muslim.

  • ||

    His obeisance toward certain self-described Muslims in operation of M.E. petroleum lands is, in fact, well-known

  • ||

    I hear he's a secret libertarian.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    As Bush's image is polished by the turds coming out of the Obama Administration, let's not forget that without Bush, Obama would have never have gotten elected. One president who communicated with the divine, and now one that confuses himself with the divine. It's crazy to think that one blew up the towers and the other one is an "illegal" Muslim. Way to go, America.

  • Sidd Finch||

    "constituency worth pursuing"

    There's too many of those already.

  • Woodrow||

    "The change was already underway in July, when Talking Points Memo aired the idea that Bush's exit had unleashed the right's hatred of Muslims."

    Similarly, Bush being President was the only thing making the lefties harp on Saudi Arabia and their horrid treatment of women and non-Saudis. Now that they are Obama's allies instead of Bush's, they are mute.

  • Cata||

    the one thing missing here is the fact that muslims themselves are changing. they are certainly not economically conservative, and their social conservatism is of a very peculiar variety.

    muslims in europe and canada, as well as the US, are deassimilating. and the process is largely due to globalization, not to who occupies the white house.

  • ||

    Gimme an L!
    Gimme an I!
    Gimme an N!
    Gimme an K!

    What's that spell?

  • ||

    You left out the B.

  • ||

    How can it be that "the elder George Bush attracted Muslims in office," if Muslims voted 2-to-1 for him in 1992, but for Clinton by the same margin in 1996?

  • ||

    Never mind. I just got my brain working and figured it out. Sorry.

  • the power of one||

    I never knew W tried to attract Muslims. Who would have thunk it?

  • bags||

    Too dated. Calvin Coolidge will be acceptable

  • fendibags||

    I always think about this when liberals talk about "reaching out" to the "Muslim community"... whatever that means.

  • scarf||

    Now that they are Obama's allies instead of Bush's, they are mute.

  • Asharak||

    The funny thing is that many of the same people who used to be humorless, blinder-wearing Bush supporters are now Tea Partiers and think Bush was a RINO who helped ruin the country.

    Hell, I even know some former Bushbots who turned into Obamabots, and they'll probably turn into another bot by 2012.

  • alan||

    I have a cousin who was a full fledged Hillary supporter and life long democrat who is now a tea partier.

    Life has an interesting way of rattling people.

  • Some Guy||

    I know one former rabid Bushbot who snapped out of it around 2006 and became a Ron Paul groupie. None of his politics have actually changed, it's just that now he claims to not like Bush and ignores the fact that he doesn't actually agree with Ron Paul on anything more than the government needs to be smaller. ("Smaller" does not, apparently, mean we should stop invading and/or torturing whoever we want.)

  • alan||

    Interesting stats on the Muslim American community in that post, Jesse. One theme you hear on talk radio these days is the supposed goal of all, even moderate Muslims, is to force the world to submit to the will of Allah, as if the warlord mentality still existed in full force today. It doesn't. As if the religion hasn't significantly evolved from then until now, and did so quite early its history, in fact. One of the most telling things of all is the reaction of the Muslim's to Obama. Here is a man born to a Muslim father, raised in a Muslim household, and at some ambiguous time between entering college and winning the presidency embraced Christianity. There is a penalty for doing that in traditional Islam (even for a non practitioner, the other facts of his life, Muslim father, Muslim household, would evoke such penalty), but did they stone him for it? Or issue a fatwa demanding his head? No, it didn't even register in their precepts to even think that way; they gave him 90 percent of their vote instead.

  • RichN||

    Many of the Muslims around the globe might believe he's a secret Muslim since his wife never accompanies him on his trips to Muslim nations. I believe the Koran even states its ok for a Muslim to lie when in enemy territory (taqiya or something like that) which might enhance their belief. If Obama wanted to squelch that notion he'd bring his wife with him on his next trip to a Muslim country.

    In general dominate Muslim populations are more conspiratorial minded than Alex Jone's following, its how their dictators deflect unrest see zionism.

  • Asharak||

    On a side note, much of the Right isn't exactly consistent in how they view Muslims, and it's certainly true of many of the openly anti-Muslim righties.

    I remember reading a blog site a couple of years ago that would normally post about how Islam was taking over the West, but when the site's contributors heard about secular leftists coming out against Islam, they wrote that being dhimmis wouldn't be so bad after all because Sharia law would at least get rid of all of the atheists, gays, pornographers, liberals, feminists, and anyone else they didn't like.

  • Ali||

    Muslims overwhelmingly support traditional marriage.

    And traditional politics.

  • Some Guy||

    Muslims overwhelmingly support traditional marriage.

    May be the first time I've seen an accurate use of the phrase "support traditional marriage."

    Now I'm not saying that all of them support forced plural marriage of young girls to middle-aged landowners, but certainly more so than the usual group that claims to "support traditional marriage."

  • ||

    Now I'm not saying that all of them support forced plural marriage of young girls to middle-aged landowners

    For the first 990,000 years of human existence there were no landowners and no one reached middle age....yet they had marriage.

    But yeah even if you ignore that gaping whole in your logic you are still wrong. Even when people started to "own" land poor people without land got married.

    Traditional marriage is better defined as a girl gets pregnant the community attaches the most convenient male standing around to her by ritual.
    Then he works himself to death (around age 35) and she has babies until she dies...usually around the age of 40.

  • ||

    This is funny--

    Even when people started to "own" land

    'People' aren't the ones who came up with the concept of land ownership. Animals did that long ago--even some plants defend their territory from things they 'consider' threats.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm fairly bored by this article/thread but I do think I'm going to have to get one of those Miss me Yet W T-Shirts since it seems to annoy everyone so.

  • Some Guy||

    If you were once someone's prison bitch, then they sold you for cigarettes, would you miss him because the new guy raped you in a marginally different way?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hypothetically?

  • AlmightyJB||

    But really you missed my point. I don't miss him at all. I just want the T-Shirt because it annoys people. Kind of like wearing an Ann Coulter T-Shirt to a Commie Con festival.

  • SIV||

    Thanks to Obama's SCHIP tax you'd be worth LESS in cigarettes now.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well that does it then.

  • alan||

    The Monarch: You're probably wondering why you're here, YOUR HERE BECAUSE YOU DONE FUCKED UP TOO MANY TIMES! You think you're hot shit in a champagne glass, but you're really cold diarrhea in a dixie cup! And if you keep like you've been doin', this is where heading.
    Random Guy: (snickering)
    The Monarch: Oh, that's funny to you right? Cause you so fuckin bad? I know your type. You think, "I'll just get me a costume and rip off the neighborhood kids." Next thing you know you've got a jet shaped like a skull with lasers on the front.
    Random Guy: This is totally gay.
    The Monarch: What?! You think this is gay, huh? Is that what you fucking said, you scrawny piece of shit? Oh, this isn't gay! But King Gorilla over there is, and I'll bet he can't wait to break off a piece of your dick in his ass! (King Gorilla makes kissing lips)

    The Monarch: You - get up! I SAID GET THE FUCK UP! What's your name?

    Dean: Dean Ven...
    The Monarch: YOUR NAME IS BITCH! And I own you. YOU'RE PROPERTY! And when I'm tired of having sex with every hole God drilled in your slender frame - King Gorilla, you got a cigarette? There, I just sold you for a cigarette, and I don't smoke! (pause) Holy shit, you're Dean fucking Venture! King, I gotta buy my bitch back, here's your cigarette.
    King Gorilla: Fuck you, gimme a dollar!

  • juris imprudent||

    Islamophobes? This coming from people who's arses pucker every time Pat Robertson opens his capacious yap?

    No one hates the religious like the secular left. As long as the religious in question are conservative, white, Christian Americans.

  • ||

    I always liked the Bush tax cuts.

    In fact over the past 8-9 years is probably the only political policy i have stuck to consistently.

    note: My road to libertarianism was not perfect.

  • Some Guy||

    There were no Bush tax cuts, only tax deferrals.

    When you cut taxes with borrowed money, you're just transferring the tax to your kids. A real tax cut would have been coupled with spending cuts (or simply not coupled with massive spending increases.)

  • Mo||

    ^This^

  • Gilbert Martin||

    There is one thing I certainly miss about Bush - actually both Bush's - a president who has enouhgh class to refrain from constantly blaming and criticizing his predecessor or successor in office.

    I haven't heard Bush jr say word about the job Obama is doing (and there's plenty he could say about it). Nor do I recall him constantly blaming Clinton for problems he "inherited" when he took office.

    Constrast that with Clinton who has been mouthing off for years about Bush and Obama who is constantly blaming Bush for everything imaginable.

  • ||

    I get what your saying, but so many other republican mouth pieces were blaming Clinton, Bush didn't need to dogpile. Limbaugh still blames Clinton for crap.

    As for Bush Sr. why would he complain about Reagan? He was part of that admin.

  • alan||

    Besides the decent across the board tax cut, there is maybe one other aspect I miss -- if the Bush administration tried that 'created or saved x # of jobs' bullshit, the media and academia would have been on them like a jackhammer up the ass with demands that the economic team be fired and investigated falsifying official reports.

  • ||

    I don't think you can blame everyone at Reason, down to the Sparkletts guy, for voting for Obama. They all swooned for his olive oil voice and guinea charm; but they had no way of knowing he would issue the E.O. requiring all citizens to convert to Islam, replace the Pledge of Allegiance with a different one by Cat Stevens, appoint Daryl Gates to the Supreme Court (yes, who died during the confirmation hearings, but it was a costly insult), and vastly expand the regulatory oversight of horse-sex videos. There's not really any way they could have foreseen this level of overreach. Today they hold out "hope" that the Administration will at least see the light on pardoning Heidi Fleiss

  • burberry scarf||

    our burberry scarf is your best choice,they are nice quality at a good discount,great welcome everyone order from us.

  • christian louboutin||

    During the 2006 hysteria over Dubai Ports World, the most vocal xenophobes were Democrats such as Chuck Schumer, who thought the prospect of an Arab company managing American ports would be a good opening to attack Bush on national security grounds. More recently, Republicans may have taken the lead in condemning Cordoba House, but relatively few elected Democrats have risen to defend the project.

  • christian louboutin||

    During the 2006 hysteria over Dubai Ports World, the most vocal xenophobes were Democrats such as Chuck Schumer, who thought the prospect of an Arab company managing American ports would be a good opening to attack Bush on national security grounds. More recently, Republicans may have taken the lead in condemning Cordoba House, but relatively few elected Democrats have risen to defend the project.

  • louboutin||

    Bush understood this" in a Maureen Dowd column, which is a bit like finding an argument for tax cuts in a Tom Frank column, an antiwar elegy in a Bill Kristol column, or a moment of humility in a Thomas Friedman column.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement